- This topic has 245 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 5 months ago by Clark.
September 7, 2019 at 10:34 #46983ClarkGuest
Sorry, this is a reply to Rhys Jaggar’s comment #46979 of September 7, 08:45.September 7, 2019 at 10:47 #46984ClarkGuest
The video Stand for Truth has the clearest video images of the Twin Tower core remnants, both during and immediately after collapse, that I know of anywhere. It clearly confirms that the cores stood longest, after the internal collapse had stripped out the floor assemblies and the perimeters had consequently tumbled outward. This rules out destruction of the buildings by initial explosive segmentation of the cores.
NIST made many errors and frequently returned sloppy work, but their statement that after initiation, rapid global collapse became inevitable, is true. It is true by a very wide margin. This is why there has not been a massive outcry from the global physics and engineering communities.September 7, 2019 at 10:49 #46985fwlGuest
Clarke: forest / trees. Don’t lose sight of the forest when examining the precise texture of a tree’s bark or the pattern of a leaf. Not calling for intuitive guess work but one part of the brain should scan the bigger picture and then decide where to allow the forensic part to look to examine the detail. The bigger picture: novice pilots for towers 1 and 2; no plane at tower 7; and then consider Bill Biney’s statements on the change of policy from targeted to bulk acquisition of domestic and world wide data, which preceded the event in question.September 7, 2019 at 11:22 #46986ClarkGuest
Sorry, I replied to Rhys Jaggar, but in the wrong place, below. Those wishing to reply on this subtopic please continue there, to preserve continuity.September 7, 2019 at 11:30 #46987ClarkGuest
fwl, I am aware of and have considered all those matters. My big picture assessment is that the attacks may well have been a Gladio B operation exploiting proxies, either broadly intentional, or something certain parties permitted to get out of hand. I look more to NATO and the military-industrial-secrecy complex than the US government and its (thoroughly penetrated) agencies.
My assessment of the various collapse dynamics does not conflict with this.September 7, 2019 at 11:39 #46989ClarkGuest
A thermite substance might explain the “attacked” steel that FEMA found in the WTC7 debris, which NIST notably failed to mention despite FEMA stating that it required explanation. Thermite would also be easy to make at short notice from commonly available substances.September 7, 2019 at 11:42 #46990fwlGuest
Ok – noted.September 7, 2019 at 13:16 #46991ClarkGuest
Even descending to less clandestine possibilities, we have decades of US collaboration with and exploitation of Wahhabist extremists, emanating primarily from those Western/Israeli allies the Gulf Monarchies, primarily Saudi Arabia.September 8, 2019 at 07:41 #47001DaveGuest
I recall asking someone to look up WTC7 on their internet phone and watch it fall and they couldn’t accept what they saw as evidence of controlled demolition. And that’s the problem, people know if they allow a bit of truth to enter their mind-set the whole story falls down, which they fear to allow, as what do you do with such information?September 8, 2019 at 08:45 #47004ClarkGuest
You’re assuming that they’re more attached to a particular story than you are; controlled demolition can indeed be ruled out, and you need to question your own acceptance of that catch-phrase.
I assume that you’re not David Chandler.September 8, 2019 at 18:30 #47008DaveGuest
Dorian, your picture in the attic must becoming a fearful sight!September 8, 2019 at 20:17 #47009KempeGuest
Dear God are we going all over this old ground again?
What part of progressive collapse are Truthers still having problems with?September 8, 2019 at 23:14 #47012DaveGuest
That link showed the twin towers. Once you look at them, their sheer size, the idea they would completely disintegrate into dust in seconds after being hit by a plane becomes absurd.September 9, 2019 at 03:13 #47013ClarkGuest
“..and if they’d been ten times as tall, they’d have been ten times as strong; any kid who’s built a tower of blocks knows it’s the short ones that are difficult, they just get easier the taller you build them. That’s why bungalows are more expensive than skyscrapers.”
The taller they come, the harder they fall.
C’mon Dave, tell us what you really think; you know your mates will never quote you on it.September 9, 2019 at 03:35 #47014ClarkGuest
Dave, each of the Twin Towers was like a hundred cheap supermarkets stacked in a vertical frame, each one’s heavy concrete floor laid on the fragile corrugated roof of the one below. The top ten of them all fell onto the rest below, smashing through floor after floor until all that churning rubble pulverised itself against the ground.September 9, 2019 at 04:09 #47015ClarkGuest
Are you suggesting that someone has sold their soul, Dave?September 9, 2019 at 09:44 #47017DaveGuest
As you can clearly see they aren’t collapsing as you suggest but disintegrating/exploding into dust at an even speed despite the strength of the towers (to hold what’s above) increasing towards the base. At least those blaming “direct energy weapons” are less audacious than you, as they can’t be seen (requires an act of faith to believe) whereas your theory defies us to believe our very eyes.September 9, 2019 at 14:18 #47028ClarkGuest
– “…at an even speed despite the strength of the towers (to hold what’s above) increasing towards the base”
Gerry, would you go over these points? Dave thinks I’ve sold my soul.
– “disintegrating/exploding into dust at an even speed […],your theory defies us to believe our very eyes”
No, trust your own eyes; there are plenty of images. The vast majority of dust welled up as the internal collapses pulverised themselves against the ground. The dust spread all over Manhattan, leaving larger wreckage full of rubble, and sections of steel with all the bolts wrenched out. Just what you’d expect.
Look Dave, there are millions of things that you or I might have difficulty imagining like photosynthesis, DNA replication, nuclear fusion, supernova or plate tectonics, but if that meant they didn’t happen there’d be no life on Earth.September 9, 2019 at 14:27 #47029ClarkGuest
Nullius in verba.September 9, 2019 at 15:08 #47030KempeGuest
Well they didn’t completely disintegrate into dust. What of the thousands of tons of steel and concrete removed to landfill or re-cycled?September 9, 2019 at 15:49 #47031ClarkGuest
There are two high tides each day, and it’s “hard to imagine” how the Moon’s gravitation could raise the one on the side of Earth furthest from the Moon. So can we conclude that for hundreds of years, the global scientific community have been lying to everyone to conceal the Truth that really, tides are raised by SPECTRE’s energy beams?September 9, 2019 at 16:07 #47032ClarkGuest
Kempe, while we’re all waiting for Gerry and David Chandler, what do you make of my “the fire-fighters did it” theory? It could help explain various odd things that people said, as well as FEMA’s unusual steel samples and WTC7’s remarkably orderly collapse.September 9, 2019 at 16:36 #47033ClarkGuest
– “When Danny Jowenko made the comment about “they must have worked hard” he was being sarcastic”
Can you be sure? Almost the next thing he said was, resignedly, “I can’t explain it”. To have been sarcastic, his earlier comment would have had to have been based on an explanation.September 10, 2019 at 05:25 #47040DaveGuest
And don’t forget the passport!September 10, 2019 at 05:28 #47041DaveGuest
A gold medal for gall!September 10, 2019 at 08:45 #47043ClarkGuest
Truther logic – “Looks like a passport being handed in was a set-up. Therefore, claims that the Towers turned to dust are true, so an energy weapon must have been fired at the towers. Therefore all the photos showing rubble and steel wreckage were faked, so there must have been an overarching conspiracy of almost supernatural power. Which proves that the passport was indeed definitely seeded, and anyone who seems unconvinced by all this must be an agent.”September 10, 2019 at 08:53 #47044ClarkGuest
Truther argument method: “…and when you’ve run out of even illogical arguments, always round off with a derogatory imputation.”September 10, 2019 at 09:10 #47045ClarkGuest
Dave, are you the same commenter as on the 9/11 Post, who described the collapses of the Twin Towers as “Jewish lightning”, and recommended The Jewish Plot against America by Victor Thorn, author of “The Holocaust Hoax Exposed: Debunking the 20th Century’s Biggest Lie”?September 10, 2019 at 13:54 #47062DaveGuest
If someone in a month long relationship takes out very expensive life insurance on their new partner and adds a clause adding a special bonus pay-out if their partner dies in a freak accident a month before they die in a freak accident, it would look suspicious, especially if they did it twice!September 10, 2019 at 21:04 #47066ClarkGuest
I’ll take that as a yes, then. You consider a Holocaust denier a reliable source of facts, presumably.
Whoever leased the WTC site would have been required to take out insurance. A clause in the insurance contract required Silverstein to rebuild in the event of payout, and rebuild he did. You can show me that he rebuilt for much less than the payout, can you?September 10, 2019 at 23:14 #47069DaveGuest
What is a “holocaust denier” and what is “Jewish lightning”?September 10, 2019 at 23:47 #47071NodeGuest
9/11/Silvio, thanks for starting this thread.
Gerry, thanks for your expert input. Delighted to have you here.
Everybody else, please don’t turn this into a slagging match. If you’re interested in the truth, excercise restraint, don’t respond to baiting.
We’ve been waiting for the release of this UAF report for 4 years. I was beginning to think the prof had been nobbled. Now here it is, facts, figures, opensource modelling, and devastating conclusions. This is hard science. It can not be dismissed as unsubstantiated theorising. The authors show ‘their workings’. They say, “This is how we arrived at the conclusion that NIST is wrong. If you disagree, demonstrate where our reasoning is wrong.”
I look forward to the next few months.September 11, 2019 at 00:05 #47072NodeGuest
Nist merely assert that progressive collapse caused the fall of WTC7. They didn’t model it, or even describe it. They offer no proof.
OTOH, the UAF report demonstrates why it <i>couldn’t</i> have been progressive collapse, and offers for examination all the modelling, engineering, mathematical and physical evidence on which they base their conclusion.
It doesn’t matter whether progressive collapse can sometimes cause the collapse of some buildings. We now have <i>evidence</i> that it couldn’t have been the cause of WTC7’s fall. Now it is up to you to refute that evidence, or accept it.September 11, 2019 at 09:27 #47078ClarkGuest
Please answer my question first; are you the same commenter as that Dave on the 9/11 Post?September 11, 2019 at 09:56 #47079ClarkGuest
Gerry, I second Node’s welcome; I hope you return soon, and I hope David Chandler will join us too.
Node, beware of, er, over-optimism*. As Mike Ruppert warned so long ago, the building wreckage is no longer available, and we should be on our guard against assuming that WTC7 entirely fulfilled its specification in the design documents. Further (and I’m unlikely to read the UAF report in detail) I wonder if their simulation correctly predicts the observed asymmetry ie. the early collapse of one end of the penthouse.
(* I’m not sure that “optimism” is the right word for actually hoping that the Twin Towers were pre-rigged with explosives throughout the buildings).September 11, 2019 at 10:11 #47080ClarkGuest
– ” the UAF report demonstrates why it <i>couldn’t</i> have been progressive collapse”
The UAF report couldn’t possibly do that, because all they have to work from are WTC7’s design documents. The wreckage was disposed of years ago; components could have been beneath specification, wrongly fitted, or even omitted entirely during construction, but we have no way to know. I’m not discounting the report as useless, but it seems extremely unlikely that it can conclusively prove much beyond NIST’s report being wrong, and Chandler already did that.
If you’re really that interested in WTC7 for its own sake, there are two other major engineering investigations that were done for a court case and its appeal. You’ll probably need to read them anyway, because the earlier UAF work made extensive reference to them.September 11, 2019 at 10:55 #47086DaveGuest
Removing the debris/evidence from a crime scene is itself a criminal act and the fact it happened and without prosecution is evidence of official complicity in both crimes.September 11, 2019 at 11:01 #47087DaveGuest
No the onus is on you to answer first, because you are saying views on one subject invalidate views on another subject, so need to explain the other subject, otherwise you shouldn’t mention it.September 11, 2019 at 11:37 #47088ClarkGuest
– “you are saying views on one subject invalidate views on another subject”
No, you rolled up here and launched immediately into character assassination with your insinuation that someone had sold their soul, and then directly accused me of audacity and gall. You’re just getting back what you repeatedly put out.
The Twin Towers didn’t turn to dust, and their floor systems were not stronger lower down than further up, so there is no need for me to invalidate your on-topic contributions; I just want it to be clear what sort of person is hurling insults at me.September 11, 2019 at 11:42 #47089DaveGuest
No debris was needed to compile the UAF, otherwise they wouldn’t have compiled it, they just needed details of the structure concerned.
To say you need the debris to prove the building didn’t fall at free fall speed into its own footprint due to shoddy construction is just the usual gall from Clark, worthy of another medal to add to his, you can’t say it was free fall because it was a second out!
- The topic ‘Engineering Prof releases draft report on 9/11 collapse of WTC Bldg 7 in NYC’ is closed to new replies.